Tuesday, June 28, 2011

GOP Lawmaker Challenges Duncan on watering down No Child Left Behind

The Republican chair of the House education committee said Thursday he won't rush into a revamp of No Child Left Behind and challenged the Obama administration's suggestion that states be allowed to waive parts of the law.

In a news conference, Rep. John Kline responded to Education Secretary Arne Duncan's assertion last week that he would waive some requirements of the law for states that adopt changes he has championed, such as linking teacher evaluations to student achievement and overhauling the lowest-performing schools. Mr. Duncan wants the changes made before the new school year.

Mr. Kline said, "We can't be driven in the House or the Senate by [Mr. Duncan] or by the president's deadline." Mr. Kline questioned Mr. Duncan's legal authority to tie waivers to policy changes not authorized by Congress and sent him a letter Thursday seeking more clarity on the issue. "He is not the nation's superintendent," Mr. Kline told reporters.

Mr. Kline said he plans to break the law into five or six smaller legislative bills and try to pass them by the end of the calendar year. The bills would focus on charter school expansion, more flexibility for schools in spending federal money, stricter requirements for teachers and rewriting rules that punish schools for missing federal student achievement standards.

No Child Left Behind, one of President George W. Bush's key domestic achievements, requires that schools test students in math and reading and punishes schools when they fall short of score objectives set by the states. The law has been criticized for labeling too many schools as failures, narrowing school curricula and prodding states to water down standardized tests.

President Barack Obama and Mr. Duncan have pushed Congress to overhaul the law and, until recently, it was expected to be one of the few bipartisan accomplishments of 2011. But Republicans have begun to push back, especially tea-party Republicans who want to reduce the federal role in K-12 education.

A spokesman for Mr. Duncan said the waiver package the secretary is considering, which he wouldn't detail, complies with the existing law. "Congress may need more time to finish its work, but states working to implement reforms needed to prepare students for college and career need greater flexibility now—in real time, not Washington time," said the spokesman, Justin Hamilton.

Mr. Kline's education committee passed a measure earlier this week that encourages states to create more high-quality charter schools, which are public schools run by non-government entities. Next, he said, the committee will tackle funding flexibility.

The basic principle of equal treatment by the law is not complicated. But while many current-day self-described civil rights activists agitate for "rights" of distinctly dubious provenance — universal health care, "affordable" housing, same-sex "marriage," etc. — they ignore an obvious unequal treatment by government affecting the most vulnerable in our society: the lack of educational options for millions of poor and minority children.

In standard school districts, children are enrolled in a school based on their home address. Getting out of that school requires their family to move to another district, make enough money to send them to a private school or alternative public school (if allowed), or have enough free time and ability to homeschool them. Poor families are severely limited, if not hopeless, on all three counts.

There is a severe disconnect in this regard between self-styled civil rights advocates and the people they profess to champion.

The Wall Street Journal reported on June 4 that the NAACP, which purports to care for the interests of black Americans, joined the United Federation of Teachers in a lawsuit against New York City to keep 22 of its worst schools from closing.

One of these, the Academy for Collaborative Education in Harlem, had only 3 percent of students performing at grade level for English last year, and 9 percent in math. Another, Columbus High School in the Bronx, has a graduation rate of 40 percent, a good deal worse than the abysmal citywide average of 63 percent.

When thousands of black parents held a rally to protest the lawsuit that would keep their kids trapped in these atrocious schools, the NAACP responded with indifference. Lawsuit critics "can march and have rallies all day long," said state NAACP President Hazel Dukes. "We will not respond."

* * * * *

Similarly, a lawsuit in California is thwarting parents who used the state's new Parent Trigger law to demand the failing McKinley Elementary in Compton be converted to a charter school. Their kids remain stuck in a school where they can't learn.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education unanimously rejected the practice of public schools segregating children based on race. The Topeka NAACP recruited the 13 winning plaintiffs in the case that concluded "separate but equal" was not equal.

Today, poor families of all races are routinely slotted into separate, or minority-majority and failing, public schools, where they dwell in learning environments so unequal that 3 percent of students can test at grade level in English while teacher unions still insist their members deserve the jobs at which they've clearly failed. Instead, unions blame the children, their parents and every other possible scapegoat.

These children are not hopeless cases. Those given the chance to attend charter or private schools under voucher or scholarship programs do better than their equally qualified counterparts who apply but aren't lucky enough to get chosen in the lotteries these programs use. And the fact that these programs must use lotteries — because so many parents want their children to have a chance at a better education — tells all you need to know about whether parents are to blame for burdening their children with low expectations.

* * * * *

Yes, public schools, administrators and teachers are not solely to blame for poor performance in urban and minority schools. They can work only with the students and cultures they are assigned. But the current structure of restriction and restraint — of government-mandated incompetence — is a disaster and must change. That means giving all parents and children the freedom to choose schools.

Public school funds should attach to each child, not a particular administrative structure. That would grant power to the powerless and force schools to compete for students by educating them successfully.

When public school quality varies so widely, equal access means not merely a chance to attend a local school, but that public funds follow the child to any accredited school a family may choose.

'I'll end culture of re-sits and toughen up GCSEs': British Govt. minister vows to bring back REAL exams

Pupils will be forced to sit their GCSEs as final exams instead of in bite-size chunks under radical plans to toughen up the tests. The Education Secretary has attacked the effect of modular GCSEs – where teenagers take several exams throughout the year, with the chance to retake them – saying they have dumbed down education.

Michael Gove said the system introduced under Labour had created a 'culture of re-sits' that has led to students retaking modules until they get better grades. And he said that while other countries had made their examination system more rigorous, England had gone backwards.

Mr Gove said pupils will now sit final exams at the end of their last GCSE year. They will be marked down for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar in all courses with a 'sustained section of writing' including geography and history.

Mr Gove also criticised exam boards for a series of blunders in GCSE and A-level papers sat by some 250,000 pupils in recent weeks. 'Exam boards have made big mistakes – this is heart-breaking for the students. So we need to change the way that GCSEs operate. Some GCSEs are broken into bite-size chunks. 'This means bits could be re-sat, so instead of concentrating on teaching and learning, more time was being spent on practice for exams.

'This meant that less time was being spent on developing a deep and rounded knowledge of the subject. 'I think the modular system was a mistake, and the culture of re-sits is wrong.'

And he added: 'Other countries have more rigorous exams and curricula more relevant to the 21st century. 'If you are looking at the way grades are awarded, the real question is whether our exams are keeping pace with other countries. 'Our children will be competing for jobs with children from across the world.'

Modular GSCEs were introduced in 2009 under reforms designed to make the exams less stressful. Pupils currently take modular GCSEs broken into units spread across two-year courses, rather than just sitting exams at the end.

The system mirrors A-levels which were made modular in 2000, with critics saying the change has made the qualifications easier to pass.

Mr Gove yesterday said he will now turn his attention to A-levels - having previously indicated he would like to scrap modules for them as well.

Education expert Professor Alan Smithers, of Buckingham University, said Mr Gove's announcement was a 'move in the right direction'. He added: 'It has been true that schools have been game-playing modules and re-takes mean that the exams aren't a good comparison of what young people can do.'

Mr Gove will also announce today that trainee teachers who fail basic spelling and maths tests will be barred from the profession. Trainees will be allowed only three attempts to pass basic literacy and numeracy tests which, at present, they can retake an unlimited number of times. 'They will not be allowed to start trainee courses until they have passed.

Among the questions asked in the trainee tests are:

* Teachers organised activities for three classes of 24 pupils and four classes of 28 pupils. What was the total number of pupils involved?

* There were no [blank] remarks at the parents' evening. Is the correct word: dissaproving disaproveing dissapproving disapproving?

The plans, which will take effect from 2012, come as figures show a staggering 10 per cent of trainees had to retake basic numeracy tests more than three times.

Additional plans include a move to stop government funding for applicants who have not gained at least a 2:2 in their degree.

No comments:

Background

Primarily covering events in Australia, the U.K. and the USA -- where the follies are sadly similar.

The only qualification you really need for any job is: "Can you do it?"

Particularly in academe, Leftism is motivated by a feeling of superiority, a feeling that they know best. But how fragile that claim clearly is when they do so much to suppress expression of conservative ideas. Academic Leftists, despite their pretensions, cannot withstand open debate about ideas. In those circumstances, their pretenses are contemptible. I suspect that they are mostly aware of the vulnerability of their arguments but just NEED to feel superior

"The two most important questions in a society are: Who teaches our children? What are they teaching them?" - Plato

Keynes did get some things right. His comment on education seems positively prophetic: "Education is the inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent.”

"If you are able to compose sentences in Latin you will never write a dud sentence in English." -- Boris Johnson

"Common core" and its Australian equivalent was a good idea that was hijacked by the Left in an effort to make it "Leftist core". That made it "Rejected core"

TERMINOLOGY: The English "A Level" exam is roughly equivalent to a U.S. High School diploma. Rather confusingly, you can get As, Bs or Cs in your "A Level" results. Entrance to the better universities normally requires several As in your "A Levels".

The BIGGEST confusion in British terminology, however, surrounds use of the term "public school". Traditionally, a public school was where people who were rich but not rich enough to afford private tutors sent their kids. So a British public school is a fee-paying school. It is what Americans or Australians would call a private school. Brits are however aware of the confusion this causes benighted non-Brits so these days often in the media use "Independent" where once they would have used "public". The term for a taxpayer-supported school in Britain is a State school, but there are several varieties of those. The most common (and deplorable) type of State school is a "Comprehensive"

MORE TERMINOLOGY: Many of my posts mention the situation in Australia. Unlike the USA and Britain, there is virtually no local input into education in Australia. Education is mostly a State government responsibility, though the Feds have a lot of influence (via funding) at the university level. So it may be useful to know the usual abbreviations for the Australian States: QLD (Queensland), NSW (New South Wales), WA (Western Australia), VIC (Victoria), TAS (Tasmania), SA (South Australia).

There were two brothers from a famous family. One did very well at school while the other was a duffer. Which one went on the be acclaimed as the "Greatest Briton"? It was the duffer: Winston Churchill.

Another true modern parable: I have twin stepdaughters who are both attractive and exceptionally good-natured young women. I adore both of them. One got a university degree and the other was an abject failure at High School. One now works as a routine government clerk and is rather struggling financially. The other is extraordinarily highly paid and has an impressive property portfolio. Guess which one went to university? It was the former.

The above was written a couple of years ago and both women have moved on since then. The advantage to the "uneducated" one persists, however. She is living what many would see as a dream.

The current Left-inspired practice of going to great lengths to shield students from experience of failure and to tell students only good things about themselves is an appalling preparation for life. In adulthood, the vast majority of people are going to have to reconcile themselves to mundane jobs and no more than mediocrity in achievement. Illusions of themselves as "special" are going to be sorely disappointed

On June 6, 1944, a large number of young men charged ashore at Normandy beaches into a high probability of injury or death. Now, a large number of young people need safe spaces in case they might hear something that they don't like.

Perhaps it's some comfort that the idea of shielding kids from failure and having only "winners" is futile anyhow. When my son was about 3 years old he came bursting into the living room, threw himself down on the couch and burst into tears. When I asked what was wrong he said: "I can't always win!". The problem was that we had started him out on educational computer games where persistence only is needed to "win". But he had then started to play "real" computer games -- shootem-ups and the like. And you CAN lose in such games -- which he had just realized and become frustrated by. The upset lasted all of about 10 minutes, however and he has been happily playing computer games ever since. He also now has a First Class Honours degree in mathematics and is socially very pleasant. "Losing" certainly did not hurt him.

Even the famous Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci (and the world's most famous Sardine) was a deep opponent of "progressive" educational methods. He wrote: "The most paradoxical aspect is that this new type of school is advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences, but to crystallise them." He rightly saw that "progressive" methods were no help to the poor

"Secretary [of Education] Bennett makes, I think, an interesting analogy. He says that if you serve a child a rotten hamburger in America, Federal, State, and local agencies will investigate you, summon you, close you down, whatever. But if you provide a child with a rotten education, nothing happens, except that you're liable to be given more money to do it with." -- Ronald Reagan

I am an atheist of Protestant background who sent his son to Catholic schools. Why did I do that? Because I do not personally feel threatened by religion and I think Christianity is a generally good influence. I also felt that religion is a major part of life and that my son should therefore have a good introduction to it. He enjoyed his religion lessons but seems to have acquired minimal convictions from them.

Why have Leftist educators so relentlessly and so long opposed the teaching of phonics as the path to literacy when that opposition has been so enormously destructive of the education of so many? It is because of their addiction to simplistic explanations of everything (as in saying that Islamic hostility is caused by "poverty" -- even though Osama bin Laden is a billionaire!). And the relationship between letters and sounds in English is anything but simple compared to the beautifully simple but very unhelpful formula "look and learn".

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

"Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts. Nothing else will ever be of service to them ... Stick to Facts, sir!" So spake Mr Gradgrind, Dickens's dismal schoolteacher in Hard Times, published 1854. Mr Gradgrind was undoubtedly too narrow but the opposite extreme -- no facts -- would seem equally bad and is much closer to us than Mr Gradgrind's ideal

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

A a small quote from the past that helps explain the Leftist dominance of education: "When an opponent says: 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already. You will pass on. Your descendents, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time, they will know nothing else but this new community.'." Quote from Adolf Hitler. In a speech on 6th November 1933

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learned much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Discipline: With their love of simple generalizations, this will be Greek to Leftists but I see an important role for discipline in education DESPITE the fact that my father never laid a hand on me once in my entire life nor have I ever laid a hand on my son in his entire life. The plain fact is that people are DIFFERENT, not equal and some kids will not behave themselves in response to persuasion alone. In such cases, realism requires that they be MADE to behave by whatever means that works -- not necessarily for their own benefit but certainly for the benefit of others whose opportunities they disrupt and destroy.

Popper in "Against Big Words": "Every intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or 'to society') to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can do - the cardinal sin - is to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis-à-vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so."

Many newspaper articles are reproduced in full on this blog despite copyright claims attached to them. I believe that such reproductions here are protected by the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Fair use is a legal doctrine that recognises that the monopoly rights protected by copyright laws are not absolute. The doctrine holds that, when someone uses a creative work in way that does not hurt the market for the original work and advances a public purpose - such as education or scholarship - it might be considered "fair" and not infringing.

Comments above from Brisbane, Australia by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former teacher at both High School and university level

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here